The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."

Sunday, May 03, 2015

As in his 2012 debate with Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford, (part one here, part two here)
all Dr. Dyson can do is throw up his usual “wall of words.” But Dyson
cannot defend drone warfare across Africa and Asia. Dyson can't justify
the TTP and TTIP, or Obama's Race To The Top program to privatize public
schools in black neighborhoods across the country, all of which West
denounces. Dyson can't explain Obama's deportation of two million people
after he promised them a road to citizenship, or Obama's preventive
detention laws or his refusal to prosecute the banksters who crashed the
economy. So he talks about West's inflated ego. Dyson cannot defend
Obama's arms deals in Africa, his support for GMOs at home, apartheid in
Israel or his broken promises to raise the minimum wage early in his
first term, or much of anything else, so he hones in on West's love of
the limelight and his questionable status as a prophet.

And finally the press has attacked the inclusion of the MEK in this hearing because although the MEK has provided highly useful information, they tend to provide information that furthers their public policy interests. Been here almost 20 years, heard about 16,000 witnesses. I've never heard a witness that wasn't providing information to further their public policy interests.

-- US House Rep Brad Sherman, last Wednesday at the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade hearing.

"If Shi'ite militias are seen as receiving the backing of the government or the United States that could alienate Sunni tribes," noted US House Rep. Ted Deutch last Thursday in a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa hearing.

And while the Congress worries about Iraq -- all of Iraq, the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, the Yazidis, the Christians . . . -- the White House just worries about appeasing their latest puppet, Haider al-Abadi.

Haider replaces US puppet Nouri al-Maliki.

As with Nouri, Haider's at war with the Kurds over oil -- despite getting press in December for allegedly ending that conflict (it hasn't ended as Baghdad's filing in the US federal court in Texas make clear).

Haider's also continued Nouri's War Crimes of bombing Falluja's residential areas, killing and wounding civilians. September 13th, Haider got a ton of good press for announcing he was ending this. The next day the bombings continued . . . as they do to this day.

And Barack and Joe are okay with that.

They're okay with anything.

They've destroyed Iraq and they just want to hand it off to someone else while praying the media in the United States continues to ignore the damage the White House did when they overturned Iraq's 2010 elections to keep Nouri on as prime minister.

But the US Congress isn't taking it so lightly.

They've been supplying weapons to Iraq, they've authorized it.

The understanding was that these weapons would be used to fight the Islamic State

The understanding was that Baghdad would supply the Iraqi army with weapons, the Kurdish Peshmerga with weapons and the tribes of Anbar (former Sahwa) with weapons.

But that hasn't happened.

And repeatedly over the last nine months, Congress has asked one government official after another to explain what's going on.

The answer has always been that's a thing of the past and it's been dealt with.

And then it turns out that it hasn't been dealt with.

So last week, the House Armed Services Committee attached a provision to the Defense bill declaring the right to supply Kurds and Sunnis directly since Baghdad wasn't supplying them.

This led to an uproar in Iraq.

Led to lies that this was a plan to split Iraq.

Reality, Haider's a cheap thug who lies.

He's not smart enough -- dumb ass that he is -- to do what he promises to do -- arm the Kurds and Sunnis.

He's just another coward that fled Iraq and waited until the US military went in back in 2003 to return.

And like so many returned exiles, he has a huge chip on his shoulder.

Being a coward probably weighs on him and of course he hates the Sunnis (Saddam Hussein suppressed Shi'ites when he ruled Iraq) and wants revenge.

So the Iraqis are supposed to suffer yet again because the White House has, yet again, put a sociopath in charge of Iraq.

Haider needs to stop bitching.

Can't be good for his stress levels and when you look a Butterball turkey, you need to watch the stress.

He can solve this whole issue by doing what he promised to do months ago -- supply the Kurdish and Sunni fighters with the weapons they need to confront the Islamic State.

And that 'method' has allowed the once broadcasting giant to struggle not only for relevance but also for ratings.

By standing by shows that were building or keeping an audience, The CW's ratings didn't plunge and they have been able to build on that in the current season.

Viewers loyalty is important.

But loyalty is a two-way street and if the network isn't loyal to the viewers, the one-sided relationship results in major ratings erosion.

More and more people are reacting to NBC announcements of new shows -- and to new shows on the network -- with shrugs and disinterest because NBC can't stick with anything other than Law and Order. It's earned that reputation and made a significant portion of viewers skittish.

The expected cancellation of State of Affairs, a strong show with a loyal base of viewers, will no doubt further harm the network.

ABC has its own problems.

And thanks to NBC's repeated failures, little attention has focused on those.

We have documented repeatedly how Shonda Rhimes has used this season to destroy Scandal. She's run off viewers. We've been telling ABC friends (including one exec we have a bet with) that this was going to happen since the first new episode after the winter finale.

And, thing is, we've been right.

No more does the show get ten million viewers an episode.

It doesn't even get nine million an episode.

Or eight.

It's settled in at 7 million.

This has all happened because Shonda destroyed Olivia.

People do not want to see Kerry Washington's character cowering.

They certainly didn't want to see -- during Black History Month, no less -- the most popular African-American character on TV sold off in an auction.

Possibly, we should all be glad the return episode aired January 29th and not January 27th because, to 'celebrate' International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Shonda might have decided to put David Rosen in a gas chamber.

When we asked about the lack of sensitivity to Black History Month by airing those multiple auction off Olivia to the highest bidder in the world episodes, ABC's White execs insisted they assumed Shonda, African-American, knew better than they about how audiences would respond.

If Shonda has a self-destruct wish (which we think she does), then she definitely knew how audiences would react.

And while we've tracked that throughout February, March and April, last week, we also noted that ShondaLand is getting much, much fewer visitors ("TV: If They Could Turn Back Time").

The amusement park no longer amuses.

Grey's Anatomy perked up a little via the episode where she killed off Patrick Dempsey's character -- a death which shocked fans.

Though last Thursday's back-to-back episodes of Grey's Anatomy were advertised as 'dealing' with the after effects of the death, viewers were disinclined to suffer through Shonda's claptrap and approximately a million viewers bailed on both episodes.

Prior to killing off Patrick, the show was suffering severe ratings erosion. If you look at 2007, for example, the show's ratings were now almost two-thirds less than what they had been.

Shonda's been telling ABC suits that she knows what she's doing (she doesn't) and that this opens up new romantic possibilities for Meredith played by Ellen Pompeo.

ABC, however, notes that 12 seasons later, Pompeo's facial work has left her face lopsided, that her hair looks increasingly like a wig and that Meredith just isn't popular with viewers the way she once was.

"The only thing that would cheer us up," one exec told us mid-week, "is if Shonda buried her feud and brought [Katherine] Heigl back. The response from viewers is consistent that they want Izzie back."

But Shonda doesn't care what viewers want.

Which is why the fact that all three of her Thursday night shows (that includes How To Get Away With Murder), hits in November, began to tank in 2015 doesn't bother her one bit.

Just like, dare we say it, how she's not bothered that her use of under eye cover up has made her a laughing stock with people wondering if she's got some Michael Jackson skin color fetish when she shows up these days with two inch white circles under her eyes.

Unless you're performing in a drag show, Shonda, with make up, less is always more.

The Water Cooler Set has missed the mess that is ShondaLand because they've been too busy trying to pimp American Crime -- ABC's biggest failure this season.

The heavily promoted show -- that Water Cooler 'critics' couldn't stop yammering about -- opened with a decent number of 8 million-plus viewers. And then viewers went running to the point that the show now posts 3 million viewers an episode.

It's a bomb.

And maybe if (White) 'critics' had paid attention, they'd grasp why that is.

This supposed look at race has resulted in one critic after another insisting Felicity Huffman (a White actress) is a lock for the Emmy.

Excuse us?

American Crime was supposed to explore race but all it did was offer another opportunity for a limited White actress -- already known for chewing scenery and being a pain in the ass to co-workers -- to be a lock for an Emmy?

The show is not a look at race.

It's a look at an African-American criminal's crimes that destroy a White family.

How novel, how avant-garde (that is sarcasm).

ABC's not just failing there.

Forever was supposed to be a break out show and it even resorted to kink in an attempt to pull in viewers. It has a loyal core audience but they haven't been enough to make it a hit. It's not the bomb that American Crime is, but it's also not a hit.

Castle is a hit but it's been a hit every season and it's the network's least appreciated show (by the network). Even with lower numbers in the last few months, it still outperforms ShondaLand.

But Castle is really the only bright spot when it comes to scripted, hour long shows.

Juliette Lewis and Ryan Phillippe are delivering strong performances on Secrets & Lies and pulling in enough viewers to be ABC's only new hit from the spring season but how do you do season two?

The finale will reveal who murdered five-year-old Tom.

What do you do after that with a show in which Lewis' character is investigating the death of Tom and spent much of the initial episodes convinced Phillippe was the killer?

Is season two about Phillipe being framed for another murder?

Is season two about Lewis going off to a new town to solve a new murder?

Either could happen but both are a different show and may not get the same ratings.

Getting the same ratings is Nashville.

Were this CBS, that would be a problem.

Last season Nashville's renewal was iffy because of the ratings. Having delivered the same ratings this season might indicate the show needs to go but in a season where Shonda Rhimes crashed and burned with three high profile shows, Nashville maintaining its ratings is actually a good thing.

Yes, an increase would have been wonderful, but ABC should be grateful the show held on to its viewers. If they're thinking about tinkering with it all, they should consider moving it to Sunday nights or to Thursdays.

The CW is going all in with DC. Next January will see another hour devoted to DC Comics characters on The CW making three shows over all.

Right now, Marvel Agents of SHIELD blocks/holds down viewership for The Flash. In fact, The Flash has only beat Marvel Agents of SHIELD once in the ratings so far this season.

That is not a minor thing when deciding what to renew or what to cancel.

Revenge, for example, was a huge hit show.

And ABC screwed with that.

They pulled it from Wednesday nights and moved it to Sundays.

They did so knowing it would lose viewers.

How come?

Soap operas never play well on Sunday nights.

(Desperate Housewives thought it was a comedy with soap opera elements.)

Dallas and Falcon's Crest were hits on Friday nights. Knots Landing was a hit on Thursday nights (same is true of Shonda's soap operas that she refuses to admit are soap operas). Melrose Place was a hit on Wednesday nights and on Monday nights. Dynasty was a hit on Wednesday nights.

Sunday night doesn't allow for soap opera hits.

Maybe it's due to church going or the nature of the day for many.

But ABC knew this and they moved Revenge to Sunday nights.

Why?

To block the expansion/domination of CBS.

And that has worked.

Without Sunday football giving CBS an extra bump in prime time, The Good Wife is posting its worst ratings ever. Battlecreek has failed to get a foothold (great ratings for ABC, but lousy for CBS and it airs on CBS).

Only Madam Secretary, airing opposite Once Upon A Time, has been a real hit (post-football lead-in, the Tea Leoni show continued to pull in the same numbers).

So Revenge did what it was supposed to.

And now they want to cancel it?

When Secrets and Lies is a question mark in terms of what-do-you-do-for-a-second-season and when Once has suffered huge viewer erosion (due to the audience tuning in for Madam Secretary instead)?

Season four of Revenge was not without its problems.

The show suffered from a cheesy bible (soap operas have an over storyline plotted out ahead of time and this is known as the bible) which was also executed poorly.

One example there: Gina Torres.

She's an excellent actress and her joining the show was a smart move.

Victoria's father-in-law (once played by William Devane) has died and this means she will get all the money (her son Daniel is dead, her husband Conrad is dead and her daughter Charlotte is not a blood relation to Devane's character). She's so happy.

Enter Natalie (Torres) putting a crimp in her style and befriending Victoria's 'friends' who are tired of her blackmail.

The crimp gets worse as it's revealed in a subsequent episode that Victoria is not getting the millions. The father-in-law left them to his wife . . . Natalie.

Victoria is enraged and sets out to destroy Natalie. Lyman Ellis (Sebastian Pigott) discovers that not only was Natalie's the dead man's nurse at the end but that she has a history of fleecing her patients.

Meanwhile, to avenge Conrad -- yeah, turns out Natalie was one of his mistresses -- she's going after David Clarke (James Tupper) and trying to make it appear he's assaulted her.

And Victoria then exposes Natalie.

Now that's a good storyline.

The problem was it was a three-episode storyline.

They brought on Torress for three episodes.

That's an insult to the audience.

There was no shaping the story, there was no preparing for twists and turns (or reacting to them), there was just a rushed plotline that would have been downright laughable were it not for the strong acting from Torres, Stowe, Pigott and Tupper.

Time and again, the show refused to nurse and develop the storyline in season four.

They also did some lousy casting.

Brian Hallisay can't act and he doesn't have a following.

In fact, he drives viewers away.

This was known before he joined Revenge in season four.

Lifetime had a hit, season one, in The Client List.

And he played the bad and abusive husband on that show.

But, along the way, Jennifer Love Hewitt fell in love with him offscreen (they remain a couple) and demanded the storyline be changed and that her character fall back in love with his character Kyle.

And when that happened, the audience fled the show leading to record low ratings in season two and Lifetime's decision -- after Love refused to write off Kyle -- to cancel the show.

He destroyed the ratings for a hit show before he joined Revenge.

He can't act.

As Rebecca frequently noted, he needed to stop talking and just take off his shirt because he can't act and eye candy has only one purpose.

Instead, they gave him storylines -- multiple storylines.

However, by mid-season, each episode seemed to contain the same tired scene of his character (Ben) telling Emily/Amanda (series star Emily VanCamp) that he didn't know if he could trust her.

A talented actor couldn't make that repeated scene come to life.

It was torture to watch a non-actor try.

Torture was watching Jack become a police officer at the start of season four and leaving mid-season.

It never made sense. He was arrested at the end of season three and when season four starts, he's a cop?

And why would he ever be a police officer?

His brother is dead. His father is dead. His wife is dead.

He is a single parent raising a toddler (Carl) and suddenly he decides he wants to be a police officer?

His dream had once been to sail off to Haiti and be an aid worker.

Now he's going to enter a dangerous field that he's never had a desire for?

It was no surprise it didn't work out.

But why did the writers put the audiences through that?

Or through what appeared to be yet another attempt to make Nolan (Gabriel Mann) straight via his marriage to Louise?

Although distracting from the main storyline, at least Staine could act and camped it up in a way that made all of her scenes watchable.

Canadian Karine Vanasse was unconvincing as a business woman, unconvincing as a pregnant woman, unconvincing as a rival to Emily and unconvincing as French.

Her performance as Margaux ranks as some of the worst network acting ever -- you'd probably have to go back to CBS' The Secret Storm to find anything as bad as what Vanasse served up.

Despite this, audiences did not flee.

Revenge's ratings did drop but they remained similar to Marvel Agents of SHIELD -- which, again, ABC needs to block ratings gains for The CW's show The Flash.

Stemming CBS was the point of moving Revenge to Sundays.

And ABC thinks they can do that with what will most likely now be a whole new Sunday night?

One led off by the ratings troubled Once Upon A Time?

Cancelling Revenge is a huge mistake.

It will anger viewers.

Again to The CW, Nikita no longer fit with their plans for the network but was still delivering viewers. Instead of just cancelling it, they brought it back for an announced final season in the fall of 2013 and that's the sort of thing that builds trust with viewers.

Revenge will be 11 episodes shy of 100.

Had the network announced Revenge would return for a final fifth season of eleven episodes, some of the outrage over the cancellation wouldn't exist.

By refusing to be loyal to the viewers, ABC now finds itself in a position where it needs to remake an entire night of programming on Sunday while, at the same time, the ratings for Thursday nights are in the toilet and the only scripted hour long show they have that's a hit is also one that probably doesn't have a second season it it. This fall, NBC may finally be able to dig its way out of the ratings cellar . . . thanks to ABC.

Last week, the US State Department ridiculously launched their so-called "Free The Press" campaign. It's where they attack rival countries who are enemies by pretending to care about the press and how it fares in those countries.

Thursday, she managed to insist that she wanted to focus on the present in Iraq and that a former US general was blaming America for the problems in the Middle East and then wanted to screech about the 2003 invasion.

See, that's not America to Lois Frankel.

To Lois, a US-supported war by Congress and by the White House in 2003 isn't "America."

But if someone dares to criticize Barack Obama's policies in the Middle East, they're "blaming" the United States.

". . . and of course I want to thank you, General, for your service to our country," she started out with an insincere smile making it clear that she didn't.

"I deeply appreciate that. So with that said, I just want to say," Lois begin to clutch her bosom -- out of horniness of who knows what, we don't know, "General, I am, I will try to say this as kindly as possible, I am perplexed of you laying the blame on this administration, first of all, for what's going on in the Middle East, first of all, without even commenting on another administration, took up, military action into Iraq in the first place, but I want to get past that."

Poor lying Lois.

She wants to get past it?

But she interrupts the general in less than two minutes to bring it up.Deceitful Lois Frankel: Because I-I-I think to-to-to blame the United States of America on what's going on in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and Yemen and every other place in the world is ridiculous. And I think it's unfair. And-uh-uh -- so -- I do have a question though. And my question is what role does a corruption of these governments and oppression of these governments the poverty in the country uh-uh and the lack of-of human infrastructure to replace these governments. How does that effect what's-what's going on? And this is for all of you?General Jack Keane: Well first of all, I didn't blame the United States, for everything that's wrong with the Middle East. I quite frankly said that our policy deicisons enabled these activities and I think that's an important distinction to make. We are -- we are contributors to our problems. I mean, it's conventional wisdom to say that the underlying factors in the Middle East is the real cause of all these problems and we should absolve the United States of any responsibility -- and those underlying factors are the ones that you're reaching out to. And I certainly understand that. The region by and large is run by repressive regimes -- almost every one of them has some degree of repression in it. The fact is the Arab Spring was about people seeking political and social injustice -- reform of political and social injustice and economic opportunity. There's political incompetence in the region and a lack of moral courage to make change. There's historical sectarianism that's in the region. But I'm also suggesting that something has fundamentally changed about the United States' role in that region in the last several years compared to what it has historically been. And I tried to point out to you those mistakes, those policy mistakes --Deceitful Lois Frankel: How-how-how -- excuse me! How-how-how 'bout going into Iraq in the first place? Do you think that was a good decision?

Have you no shame, Lois?

Some people lack the maturity to serve in Congress.

We have no idea how she managed to get into Congress -- certainly wasn't due to her looks -- but it's really time she left.

The Labour Party and socialism

Tomáš Tengely-Evans looks at the shifting relationship between the Labour Party, the trade unions and socialism in the run-up to the general election

Published Tue 21 Apr 2015

Issue No. 2450

Labour Party campaign poster

The majority of working class people dread the idea that the Tories might win the general election. They know that it will lead to an attempt to finish off the NHS, years of more assaults on our living standards and a systematic offensive to take away everything workers have fought for and gained. But many do not see the Labour Party as a serious alternative. The last Labour government backed war and privatisation, while in opposition Labour has accepted austerity.

Of course it is not irrelevant who wins on 7 May. If the Tories win the election then every reactionary, racist and pro-capitalist throughout the land will rejoice. They will feel that bit more confident to attack us.

The bullying boss, the police chief and the judge will all be even surer that the politicians will back them up. If Labour wins it will boost many working class people’s confidence to have got rid of the Tories.

Our attitude towards the Labour Party is based on its historic links to the organised working class in the trade unions.

Labour’s links with the trade unions have been stretched to almost breaking point and workers’ loyalty to the party is wearing thin.What’s happened to Labour? Tony Blair and the New Labour project undoubtedly wanted to turn Labour into another “neoliberal” party without formal links to the unions. The Blairites failed, but they significantly frayed the party’s links with the unions and its working class base.Inequality

The Iraq war, exploding inequality and the submission to big business meant that many people felt Labour had ceased to be “their party”. But the unions still support and provide most of the funds for the party. Just last month Unite handed over £1 million with no strings attached.

However, Labour’s link with the working class does not boil down to union funding or the fact that many workers still vote for it. US unions are also the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and many of its leaders enjoy cosy relationships with its top politicians.

Nor is it just about policies—the Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have far more left wing manifestos.

Before the first Labour government was even formed, the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin argued that Labour was a “capitalist workers’ party”. “The Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party,” he said in 1920. “While made up of workers it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie.

“It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers.”

The Labour Party was set up by Trades Union Congress (TUC) and socialists in a period of defeat.

The great struggles that led to the new mass unions at the end of the 19th century had come to an end.

The trade union leaders realised the need for independent representation in parliament, instead of simply relying on the out-and-out capitalist Liberal Party. Many workers came to look to the Labour Party to deliver reforms as opposed to relying on their own strength.

While a step forward for independent working class representation, it was never a socialist party that set out to abolish capitalism. The most fundamental contradiction within “Labourism” is that it articulated workers’ aspirations for a better world, but aimed to take the reins of the capitalist state. StateThe apparent golden age of Labour after 1945 with the creation of the NHS and the welfare state was not a result of Labourism. It came from the ruling class’s fear of a radicalised workers’ movement after the Second World War.

The Labour government presided over far-reaching reforms, but also defended the empire, attacked striking workers and went along with racist scapegoating. Such experiences (which have been repeated in even sharper forms under every Labour government) led to some workers breaking from Labour.

But they also lead to internal conflicts between the unions, the Labour MPs, the individual members and the party bureaucrats. At some points (such as in the early 1980s) the party leaders have used the union leaders to defeat more left wing members in the constituencies.

More recently union influence has been steadily eroded—without real opposition from the unions. For instance, Ed Miliband moved to weaken the links with the unions in 2013—and despite much noise, the union leaders backed down after securing some concessions from the original plans.
The pressure on union leaders, including left wingers who’ve been critical of Ed Miliband, was to shut up and get behind the Labour leadership. When the Labour Party’s national policy forum voted last year against breaking with austerity, it included top union representatives from the likes of Unite.

However, this isn’t just a one way street, with the unions loyally allowing Labour to stick two fingers up to them. Unite and the GMB union have explicitly tried to get working class union members selected as council and parliamentary candidates and shift party policies leftwards. Unison is slow to criticise the Labour Party, but was the union leading industrial action in the run-up to the general election.

From the union bureaucracy’s perspective, the four-hour health walkouts last year were a serious effort to shape Labour’s agenda.

Many ordinary trade unionists are frustrated and uninspired with Labour, but will still cast their vote for it. But loyalty is wearing thin and for many people a Labour vote is making less and less sense.

In Scotland there has been a qualitative shift in workers’ attitudes towards Labour, despite the links with the union bureaucracy remaining. Labour support has collapsed after it did the Tories’ dirty work in campaigning for a No vote during last year’s referendum campaign.

Opinion polls show workers are breaking from Labour in its former heartlands. In 2010 Labour won the Glasgow South West constituency by 19,863 votes to the SNP’s 5,192. Last week a poll showed the SNP 21 percent ahead.

The SNP is ahead in polls in Gordon Brown’s former constituency. Workers in Scotland are abandoning Labour for what are seen as left alternatives. But this shift is being funnelled into the capitalist SNP party rather than a genuine left alternative. Class

That’s why the main task for socialists is still building a working class left alternative. In Scotland the Labour Party is on the verge of suffering the same rejection as happened in Greece to the Pasok party. In 2009 Pasok won the elections with 44 percent of the vote. This year it was nearly wiped out with just 4.7 percent of the vote.

In England and Wales the crisis is not yet so deep. But it is no longer the case that workers who want change automatically look to Labour. There are a range of parties that left wing workers now support.

Labour is still not an unashamedly bosses’ party like the Tories. And its links to the working class remain. On present trends Labour may, for all its betrayals and shortcomings, stagger into Number 10 after the election.

“Labourism” is not dead but it is under severe strain and we want to win workers away from those ideas and to the left. The danger is that unless there is a strong socialist alternative, workers revolted by Labour can be attracted by the populist racism of Ukip.

That is what has happened in France where the Socialist Party’s Francois Hollande was elected president in 2012 after five years of brutal right wing rule.

But far from breaking firmly from his predecessor, he continued with austerity and racist scapegoating. And the fascist National Front of Marine Le Pen has been the greatest beneficiary.

We need an unashamedly socialist party to stand against Labour—and the SNP. The Socialist Workers Party is standing as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) to develop a stronger and broader left.

It’s about positioning ourselves within the weakening of Labourism to try and break workers away from it—during the election and afterwards. The decline in support for Labour underlines the need for a united left alternative in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.

It must have real roots and, unlike Labour, an orientation on workers’ struggles and fighting for socialism.

One thing that I have learned
very clearly: cops and inner-city African Americans have much more in
common with each other than they have in common with the people who
created the conditions in which they both toil. We are all suffering
under the same corrupt system. Let’s not let divide and conquer policies
and propaganda destroy us.
Read More

Secretary McDonald solicits feedback in letter to vet participantsNEW YORK (April 28, 2015) – Stating that the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can only improve when patients let
them know when something is not working, Secretary Bob McDonald today
wrote to veterans who participated in The Wait We Carry data tool to
solicit their direct feedback. The tool and website, www.thewaitwecarry.org,
was created by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) with the
support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and launched at
TED2015 in March. The unique data visualization tool currently captures
the personal experiences of 2,025 veterans using VA health care system
and those who have submitted disability claims for service-connected
injuries.

“Veterans are tired of feeling like they’re not being heard. We
created this platform for them to tell their personal stories about
their VA experiences,” said IAVA’s CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff.

“Too
often, veterans who rely on the VA for their health care feel like a
just a number, rather than a real person who deserves the high-quality
service they’ve earned. We are pleased that Secretary McDonald is
committed to improving the culture of his agency by instilling a
customer-first attitude among staff. We hope veterans will take him up
on the offer to contact his customer specialists to help improve their
service to our nation’s veterans.”

The letter sent to veterans who participated in IAVA’s The Wait We
Carry is below. Veterans of all wars are encouraged to submit their own
stories to the website by visiting www.thewaitwecarry.org and clicking “Share your experiences.”

Dear Veteran:

Thank you for participating in The Wait We Carry
and sharing your VA experience. We believe the department can only
improve when Veterans like yourself let us know when something isn’t
working.

From the feedback you provided IAVA, you
indicated that your experience did not meet the highest level of service
we strive for everyday. We would like to change that by looking into
the specific issues you identified in the survey, and look for ways to
make your next experience less stressful.

If you would like for us to follow up
with you, please email us at newmedia@va.gov with the subject line “The
Wait We Carry.” Our customer service specialists will connect with you
to get the information they need to reach out and address your issues.

Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the
leading post-9/11 veteran empowerment organization (VEO) with the most
diverse and rapidly growing membership in America. Celebrating its 10th
year anniversary, IAVA has repeatedly received the highest rating -
four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity
evaluator.

U.S. House Votes to Overturn D.C. Law Prohibiting Employer Discrimination Based on Reproductive Health Care Decisions

05.01.15 - (PRESS
RELEASE)
Late last night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228 to 192 to block a
D.C. City Council bill that would protect employees in the District from
discrimination based on their personal reproductive health care decisions.

The
Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act (RHNDAA), passed by the
City Council in December 2014 and signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser in January
2015, would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees for
decisions they or their dependents make about whether, when, and how to build a
family, such as using fertility treatments, birth control, or accessing
abortion services. Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) introduced the disapproval
resolution on April 13.

Employment
discrimination on the basis of personal, private reproductive health-care
decision-making is a national problem, from employees experiencing loss of
wages to being blocked from promotion opportunities to being fired from their
jobs altogether. The D.C. Office on Human Rights supports
the RHNDAA to protect employees in the District of Columbia from
experiencing similar discrimination.Said
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:“Everyone
has the right to make decisions about their reproductive health and lives
without fear of losing their job or facing discrimination.“This
is a common-sense bill passed unanimously by the D.C. City Council to ensure
that bosses cannot intrude upon decisions made in their employees’ exam rooms,
just as politicians in Congress should not be intruding upon the District’s
efforts to enact it.”

The
Center for Reproductive Rights was one of more than 50 organizations in a broad
coalition to mobilize
against the RHNDAA disapproval resolution alongside a similarly
discriminatory resolution to block the D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act—which
would prohibit religiously-affiliated schools from discriminating against LGBT
students and groups. The House has not yet held a committee mark-up for the
disapproval resolution concerning the D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act, which
was introduced by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) on April 14.

The
District of Columbia Home Rule Act grants Congress the authority to review
legislation passed by the D.C. Council before it becomes law. The Senate has
until May 1 to take up the House measure and pass a joint disapproval
resolution, which would be subject to Presidential approval.

Search This Blog

Third Estate Sunday Review

About Me

Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, "Ava" started out this site as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're still students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion.
From the start, at the very start, C.I. of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C.I.'s part of our core six/gang. (C.I. and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also credit Dallas as our link locator, soundboard and much more. We try to remember to thank him each week (don't always remember to note it here) but we'll note him in this. So this is a site by the gang/core six: Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. (of The Common Ills).